Ah. In that case, see my post above. The market crashed because it got oversaturated with really terrible shovelware, the absolute worst example of which was E.T..trollpwner said:
Jimquisition: Videogames Are A Luxury
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Jim certainly said it better than I ever did.
I can afford the luxury now but I couldn't always; and if there hadn't been affordable used games back when I got back into the consoles, I wouldn't have bothered and I wouldn't be buying new games now. Even then, I did fall in love with some titles and would occasionally save up for an upcoming title that I was looking forward to.
I can afford the luxury now but I couldn't always; and if there hadn't been affordable used games back when I got back into the consoles, I wouldn't have bothered and I wouldn't be buying new games now. Even then, I did fall in love with some titles and would occasionally save up for an upcoming title that I was looking forward to.
Yea, I also sometimes feel that Jim is taking the words right out of my mouth. But that's a good thing. It gives me hope and it shows that not all game journalists are just sellouts for the publishers, retailers, and platform developers.Owyn_Merrilin said:Great video. Only question: do I get a writing credit?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.374224-Games-are-a-luxury-item-So
I kid, but that is two weeks in a row where the topic has come straight from the forums. A special thanks line in the credits might be a good idea for videos like that.
"Fuck the poor, and let them eat cake.."
Yeah! totally, this IS quoted(paraphrased) by some one who knows history! Totally agreed!
*****, Perfect Bonus, Trophies earned, Couldn't said that last thing better my self! nice job Jim!
Oh, for those who HAVE NOT HEARD, If you are looking for a good shooter game, and all that's out this year looks too expansive, or too DLCy... Play Tribes:Ascend!!! it's SOOOO UNDER RATED!~It's a F2P (FREE TO PLAY) MMO shooter! The game is TAD P2W-ish on the arsenal side, but as far as skill/fun/XP-gain-speed, it's done a (to me) better job than ANY OTHER MMO FPS games out there!~ give it a run, if you see potential in this game, but want to use better weapons... pop 20 bucks (cheaper than other games out there) to get you buffed with 2-3 classes, you can even test out weapons in practice mode too!
Yeah! totally, this IS quoted(paraphrased) by some one who knows history! Totally agreed!
*****, Perfect Bonus, Trophies earned, Couldn't said that last thing better my self! nice job Jim!
Oh, for those who HAVE NOT HEARD, If you are looking for a good shooter game, and all that's out this year looks too expansive, or too DLCy... Play Tribes:Ascend!!! it's SOOOO UNDER RATED!~It's a F2P (FREE TO PLAY) MMO shooter! The game is TAD P2W-ish on the arsenal side, but as far as skill/fun/XP-gain-speed, it's done a (to me) better job than ANY OTHER MMO FPS games out there!~ give it a run, if you see potential in this game, but want to use better weapons... pop 20 bucks (cheaper than other games out there) to get you buffed with 2-3 classes, you can even test out weapons in practice mode too!
Ugh, that's a terrible idea. All it would do is make shitty games that no one wants cheap and the good games out of reach for even more consumers.DiMono said:
I can't envision any scenario where pricing a game based on how "good" it is wouldn't be misused, abused or just plain fucked up.
What an ignorant comment. You clearly don't understand that for many, many people who would like to play video games that that "one days worth of work, for minimal wage" can mean the difference between paying a bill or eating for a week or making rent. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that you still live at home and have no idea what real day to day living expenses are like.Sober Thal said:
As do I and I wish everyone did. Too many people, I believe, buy a game day 1 or at least within the first week because, not because they wish to spend $60. For a lot of games now, if you don't buy right away you miss out on a lot of stuff like multiplayer having enough people on the servers to make it fun, timed offers and even less tangible things like hype and being current on what games you've played.FoolKiller said:
If people just waited when a game came out and made a better informed decision, we might actually have longer sales cycles and less hysteria over pricing.
Very good video Jim, and a good tie in to your video last week.
People making the argument that games are a luxery are actually arguing for lower prices. Video games are not yachts. A company cannot charge all their expenses for the single unit. Games recoup their costs and make profit from mass sales. In order to make mass sales they need to price the game so that the maximum number of people will buy the game. This is simple economics. There is a price point where more people will buy the game and theyfore the developer will more more overall profit (less profit per game but more total games sold).
Perhaps the current pricing model worked for developers when there was less competition, but now that the market is saturated a company cannot survive with this pricing.
Kingdoms of Amalur came out in early Feb. I tried the demo, thought it was interesting, but I didn't want to spend $60 on it. Plus I was still playing Skyrim, Heroes of might and Magic 6, Arkham City and a few other mainstay games. So I figured there was no need to run out and get a game, since I have lots of others to keep me occupied. So early May the game drops to $40 at future shop, and that is 3 months after release. That isn't even counting the sales on gamestop and steam ealier in April (I wanted this game for the PS3 as I found the controls better than on a keyboard).
My point is that it is no longer viable to expect everyone will buy your game at full price. It is better for us as consumers to wait a few months for the sales to happen. Maybe then the developers will relealize that we won't pay full price, and if they want to make sure they get the sales they need to lower the price at the get go, before people forget about their games.
Also the picture of that racist puppet guy coming up as speaking of not neccessary. Pure gold.
People making the argument that games are a luxery are actually arguing for lower prices. Video games are not yachts. A company cannot charge all their expenses for the single unit. Games recoup their costs and make profit from mass sales. In order to make mass sales they need to price the game so that the maximum number of people will buy the game. This is simple economics. There is a price point where more people will buy the game and theyfore the developer will more more overall profit (less profit per game but more total games sold).
Perhaps the current pricing model worked for developers when there was less competition, but now that the market is saturated a company cannot survive with this pricing.
Kingdoms of Amalur came out in early Feb. I tried the demo, thought it was interesting, but I didn't want to spend $60 on it. Plus I was still playing Skyrim, Heroes of might and Magic 6, Arkham City and a few other mainstay games. So I figured there was no need to run out and get a game, since I have lots of others to keep me occupied. So early May the game drops to $40 at future shop, and that is 3 months after release. That isn't even counting the sales on gamestop and steam ealier in April (I wanted this game for the PS3 as I found the controls better than on a keyboard).
My point is that it is no longer viable to expect everyone will buy your game at full price. It is better for us as consumers to wait a few months for the sales to happen. Maybe then the developers will relealize that we won't pay full price, and if they want to make sure they get the sales they need to lower the price at the get go, before people forget about their games.
Also the picture of that racist puppet guy coming up as speaking of not neccessary. Pure gold.
Oh Jim. Currently one of my favorite pro-consumer commentators out there for the video game industry. I've got no idea what those prawns are for (presumably I just didn't get the joke), but your argument simply makes boatloads of sense. Nobody's willing to back down on the prices they charge for games or the budgets they make because they believe they will indeed be special and that the falling sales will just mean more money for them. Sad, stupid times indeed.
Completely agree. Firstly, making your game technically impressive is nice, but it means it's too expensive and I can't run it on my PC. So basically I can't play any new PC exclusives. They're also too damn expensive, so I have to be careful when I spend my money. This means that unless I think the game looks absolutely brilliant, I'm not going to buy it at full price. Even £30 is reasonable enough, £40 is not. You may think that £10 isn't much, but that is enough to buy an excellent indie game I will spend hours on. I'd rather pay £10-£20 for an average to good game than £40 for an excellent one. That way, I don't lose much if it's rubbish. Price is one of the first things I check when I consider purchasing a game, and for new games it's almost always too high.
Agree with this one, its always confused me when people say things like "games are a luxury" as if it's a problem for the person who cant buy the game; its not, its a problem for the industry.
If I cannot afford your game day one, then I'm either not gonna buy it or ill buy it way later and used thus giving the developer none of the benefit of my purchase. I don't particularly want to buy used all the time, I'd like to be able to support the developers I approve of and help the medium grow in directions I like, but under the current pricing regime I simply cannot afford to do so.
I'll get my games eventually whatever the price is, but if the industry fixed its pricing model Id be able to get my games in a way that monetarily helped the developers like they are constantly bleating at us to do. Industry people using the "luxury" excuse are basically saying: "close your wallet Woahdan we don't want your money" which is fine for me, not sure its a good way to run a business though.
If I cannot afford your game day one, then I'm either not gonna buy it or ill buy it way later and used thus giving the developer none of the benefit of my purchase. I don't particularly want to buy used all the time, I'd like to be able to support the developers I approve of and help the medium grow in directions I like, but under the current pricing regime I simply cannot afford to do so.
I'll get my games eventually whatever the price is, but if the industry fixed its pricing model Id be able to get my games in a way that monetarily helped the developers like they are constantly bleating at us to do. Industry people using the "luxury" excuse are basically saying: "close your wallet Woahdan we don't want your money" which is fine for me, not sure its a good way to run a business though.
In fairness, a lot of my attitude of "games are a luxury" is due to some one trying to complain they can't buy EVERY game they want. As someone that saved dimes to rent games back in the early 90s, I can sympathize with cash flow issues. It's people that somehow assume the entire library should be in their price range, not individual items that grind my gears. Granted I hear it a lot more in anime circles, but it comes up in gaming as well. We just aren't entitled to buy everything we want.
That said, the arguement is sound. I've been of the thought that gaming is vastly oversaturated with product to an overall detrement. Despite ecconomic views to the contrary, demand is not infinate, and our spare income can only go so far. Even without the choice of food or games, our gaming dollars get spread over too many games instead of getting concentrated into a few leads to projects showing losses and companies going under, and stagnant and falling wages only add the the problem as even less is there to spread around. The problem isn't limited to gaming, but all business. It's just a matter of basic logic that your product has to be in the price range of your customers, and if their means to spend fall, so must prices.
That said, the arguement is sound. I've been of the thought that gaming is vastly oversaturated with product to an overall detrement. Despite ecconomic views to the contrary, demand is not infinate, and our spare income can only go so far. Even without the choice of food or games, our gaming dollars get spread over too many games instead of getting concentrated into a few leads to projects showing losses and companies going under, and stagnant and falling wages only add the the problem as even less is there to spread around. The problem isn't limited to gaming, but all business. It's just a matter of basic logic that your product has to be in the price range of your customers, and if their means to spend fall, so must prices.
This is how the market works. Mass produced items don't make their money back on an individual sale. Production costs on anything (phones, TV's, computers for example) are a small portion on the overall costs. This varys depending on the product, but engineering, development, and testing are very expensive.Callate said:
Games are not artifically low. That isn't even a correct concept to use in this type of industry (that would be better said of most food commodeties). A company must make a profit. To do that they need to sell enough items to make more money than they invested in the product. As a small example, if something cost a milion to make then the company must make a million back to break even, then everything else is profit (I am ignoring overhead in this example). So it could be one sale at a million, 2 at $500,000, 10 at $100,000, or 16,667 at $60. Or 25000 at $40.
The key is for a company to figure out what price point will generate the most overall profit. The numbers above are just break even, but the real goal is to make as much profit as possible. So if $60 generates 100,000 saless and $40 generates 200,000 sales then it makes more sense to price at $40, as the company makes more money overall.
The issue you point to is more to do with over saturation. Too many developers all wanting our limited disposable income. With so much choice we can pick and choose, so some companies will fail because the made something that didn't have a broad enough appeal and cost them too much to make.
The market always balances out in these situations, either by adjusting their price or the company going under.
Actually as a counterpoint to people who say that video games are a luxury, in some cases they're not. When I was 14 years old an asshole decided to shoulder check me into some folded up bleachers at school and it gave me brain damage (I've recovered most of the way, but I'll always have some problems). When I was at the first stage of recovery my neuropsychologist had me play video games as a form of therapy, and don't forget video games are also used in treating PTSD, and some phobias, so if it wasn't for the used game industry (I be poor as fuck) I wouldn't have been able to recover as well as I have. Mind you I still have problems, but I was able to regain a lot of my facilities, and my I.Q. with interest.
I wonder if someone has explained this to the game developers/publishers.
Sell games at 60 dollars, which 50 people can afford, and you make 3000 dollars.
Sell games at 40 dollars, which 100 people can afford, and you make 4000 dollars.
Sell games at 30 dollars, which 200 people can afford, and you make 6000 dollars.
Now, admittedly, this hinges on your game being able to sell enough copies to make up for the costs, but to me, at least, this seems like a better model than pricing yourself out of the market could ever be.
Sell games at 60 dollars, which 50 people can afford, and you make 3000 dollars.
Sell games at 40 dollars, which 100 people can afford, and you make 4000 dollars.
Sell games at 30 dollars, which 200 people can afford, and you make 6000 dollars.
Now, admittedly, this hinges on your game being able to sell enough copies to make up for the costs, but to me, at least, this seems like a better model than pricing yourself out of the market could ever be.
Video does make a lot of sense.
Having said that, there is one occasion where "Videogames are a luxury" is a valid point, and that's to shoot down "I am justified in pirating games because I can't afford them".
Having said that, there is one occasion where "Videogames are a luxury" is a valid point, and that's to shoot down "I am justified in pirating games because I can't afford them".
I honestly wish they did already know this.Mikeyfell said:
I hear this all the time, and my thought is "so fucking what?" Not to Jim's argument, but the idea that it's a good idea to cut off revenue streams.
Games are a luxury, and as Jim magnificently puts it, they are something we can do without. So it's stupid that game companies are declaring war on used games and whatnot, then asking "well why are our sales down?"
Well, duh. Games are a luxury. You've implied it, your sycophants and apologists have stated it. Now revel in the world you've created. Maybe kicking those people who actually work for a living in the balls isn't the best way to get them to buy your games.
I'm buying less games than ever, too. Not because I can't afford them, but because few of them seem worth the price. Since games are a luxury, asking me to spend the money I do have (which is far more limited than I'd like) on your product should mandate making it look attractive. I have other luxuries I can spend money on that are more appealing than the current game crop. And when you say something dickish like "well, our games are a luxury," I'm going to say, "You're right. And I won't buy them."
And if I was completely poor, I'd be even less inclined to buy from them.
If that's the study I think it is, then it's kind of an unimportant study as it was done by a torrent site. The article doesn't state directly. Since they only mention the analysis guy AS he's offering analysis and don't say he conducted or aided the study, I think it's safe to guess it is.Crono1973 said:
That's like trusting the RIAA's figures that every year, people pirated 270 gajillion dollars in music. Biased sources, as they say, are biased.
Why are budgets for AAA games so bloated, is it because they have way too many people working on the project, is it because they don't plan production of the game well and a large part of the budget is spent on content that is cut?
Also I believe sales are down because people are less willing to spend 60$ on a game that might be crappy like Prototype 2, that's why Assassin's Creed, CoD, Valve games and Rockstar games do well, they are associated with certain types of experiences or the development company is associated with quality products.
Also I believe sales are down because people are less willing to spend 60$ on a game that might be crappy like Prototype 2, that's why Assassin's Creed, CoD, Valve games and Rockstar games do well, they are associated with certain types of experiences or the development company is associated with quality products.
and your avatar makes it even betterSkarKrow said:and Jim Sterling is an incredibly sexy man...
Oh shit I actually wrote that